The Government, The Internet, and A Little Revolution...

This came via the Treespotter via the Hammer of Truth.

Has technology changed the face of revolution?

Religious Tolerance, Nah!

Indonesia would be our home if we were not currently residing in the Land Downunder. Yet, a recent story our of Tanjung Balai in North Sumatra has me wondering whether Indonesia is all that it claims to be when it comes to arguing that it practices a moderate form of Islam and that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to the freedom of religion. To my mind, this piece of news out of North Sumatra suggests that not all religions are equal under the constitution, particularly if they are a minority faith. This piece of news is also indicative of a lack of leadership across all levels of government and the community.

The news relates to a rather large 6-meter statue of Buddha which finds itself sitting atop of a 3-storey temple located in the heart of Tanjung Balai. After a great deal of agitation by a local Islamic group, the Forum for United Muslims, there was allegedly an agreement reached that would see the Buddha moved to a more "respectful" location. More respectful seemingly means out of the eyesight of Muslims. I am not sure that there are all that many Muslims that would be tempted to convert to Buddhism based solely on seeing a large statue of the Buddha, but then again, perhaps the temptation is just too great that it is better to remove it.

However, the longer the statue remains where it is the more likely it is that there will be protests to see it removed with all haste. The local Islamic Community Council seems to think that removing the statue is all about maintaining religious harmony. Perhaps some other minority religions in Indonesia would beg to differ. This is about one religion using its numbers to dominate other religions by forcing compliance and issuing threats. If the situations were reversed and some followers of a minority faith linked together with others and demanded that all local mosques not use loud speakers to make the call to prayer as it disturbed them, what then would the likely outcome be?

Tolerance is a two-way street. It requires the ability to tolerate and be tolerated. Yet, I am not sure this current dispute evidences a two-way street. It seems more likely this is a one-way street where you do as your told or suffer the consequences of your non-compliance.

The cold hard reality here is that Buddhism is an officially sanctioned religion. Followers of the faith have a constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their faith. They also have a right to their religious symbols and deities in order to fulfill their religious obligations.

The government and courts at all levels must do all that they can to protect religious freedom. Unfortunately, another cold hard reality is that populism means that elected officials rarely maintain the testicular or ovarian fortitude that they extol as candidates.

I wonder whether this is another nail in the coffin of tolerance in Indonesia?

Getting to Know Your President: A Question of Civil Service Exams...

There are two things that are consistently getting me into that shaking my head mode and muttering, "are you serious?" Yes, the FPI and SBY. Funny how each prefer to go by the acronym rather than the full version of their monikers. I wonder if their are any other similarities or like interests?

Anyway, this is not a post about why the FPI and SBY are equally bad for Indonesia. This post is to focus only on SBY.

The recent Prospective Civil Servant Entrance Exam (CPNS - Calon Pegawai Negeri Sipil) was held at the Ministry of Trade recently. It was different from all previous exams in one very noticeable way. It included a question on SBY and his musical talents. Specifically, the question asked, "which of the following songs was on President SBY's third album?" It was multiple guess with A, B, C, or D as your choices. So, if you are like me and think the President cannot sing for crap, then you still had a chance at guessing the right answer.

If you are shaking your head and going WTF is this all about, then you are probably not alone. I am still smiling at the thought of the question making it onto the exam in the first place. I am also chuckling at the prospect of how the president might answer the questions that will undoubtedly be asked about the appearance of the question in an exam of this kind.

The Minister of Trade has gone on the record saying that she was not aware of the question being there, in fact the Minister needs to check and confirm first. It will be interesting if this is just a case of a candidate wanting to cause a bit of a firestorm of bad press. But, I guess time will tell.

However, if the question is there, then this begs the question, "how did it get there?"

Is the appearance of the question in a civil service exam a result of some good old fashioned corruption, collusion, and nepotism? Or is it just a simple case of a low-level employee in the Ministry of Trade finding something to amuse themselves with now that "all" the porn sites have been shut down?

Whatever the case may be, this is just a little bit more bad press for the president to deal with. The president seems to be in a bit of a downward spiral, at least in the sense of being in a state of constant spin in order to maintain his personal popularity. My guess is that history will be less kind to him and his legacy will be a non-legacy. A president that did two terms and achieved well below expectations.

I would have said "C". When in doubt it is always "C", isn't it?

Ho hum...

Can Women Be Leaders?

I actually read the genesis of what I am about to post in The Jakarta Globe. What I had intended to say was way more confrontational and self-righteous than what follows here. It is so because I forced myself to stand up and walk away. I made a sandwich and drank a glass of juice. This was probably a good thing.

I consider myself a tolerant person, although sometimes I have to wonder, but there are some things that really press my buttons. One of them is the idea that women cannot lead and that this is justified in Islam. There are more than enough examples of poor male leaders throughout history that should make us pause and wonder whether men have any inherent right to call themselves the chosen ones, the leaders of men and women.

Yet, Ridwan Muhammad, Speaker of the Local Biruen Government in Aceh, has been lobbying for the need to change the female Head of the Plimbang Subdistrict, Anisah. To all intents and purposes it is politics as normal for any where in the world; you have those that like the job you are doing and those that think you are woeful. It seems that the woeful ledger is winning out as they have gained the support of Ridwan.

The move to replace Anisah though is not based on her woeful performance per se,but rather because she is a woman. And, at least, as Ridwan sees it, this means under Islam and the brand of Sharia Law (ad I use the term loosely) that Aceh has adopted women are not permitted to lead. Presumably, this is because leading men is not the job of women. Yet, the manner in which Ridwan made his views known by saying that women were "unfit" under the laws of Islam to lead is an affront to all women irrespective of their religion.

So, I wonder, Ridwan, what is it that women are good for in your view? Is it that women exist only to serve the pleasures of men? Is it that a good shellacking in the bedroom to satisfy the needs of men is the intent God had in mind? Is it that women are only good for breeding; the old 'bare foot and pregnant' deal? Are women to be judged solely on their abilities to serve their men, where a woman who can cook, wash, iron and sew gets a higher ranking than one lacking in those essential skills?

I wonder, how does this sort of misogyny and chauvinism support the idea that Islam is about protecting the dignity and rights of women? How is it that the Ridwan alternative is one that promotes tolerance, harmony and acceptance? As an aside, Ridwan, are there no prominent women in the history of Islam that had what might be perceived as leadership roles within the religion or the broader community?

Let's not get too deeply into the religious debate. The point of this post is not to dissect Islam and its views on women, in spite of the issue lending itself to such discussion and debate.

Therefore, just focusing on the legal ramifications in a constitutional sense. Does the special autonomy granted to Aceh allow it to discriminate against women within the perceived framework of the implementation of Sharia Law? My limited understanding of the Indonesian Constitution is that discrimination is not permitted, including discrimination against women.

Maybe this idea that women are inferior to men can become part of the new "Visit Indonesia" tourism campaign?

SBY and a Third Term as President?

Oh dear!

Ruhut Sitompul seems to want to return to his comedic acting roots by suggesting that the Constitution should be amended so that the current two-term limit on presidents can be extended to three terms or more.

The problem I have with this is not amending the Constitution. In a democracy the amending of the Constitution is possibly. There are strict rules in place for how this is done. If they are followed, and this is truly the will of the Indonesian people then so be it.

However, how quickly we forget. Indonesia is only a little more than ten years removed from what was a period of guided democracy under Soekarno, Indonesia's first president, and the ruthless, iron-fisted dictatorship of Soeharto. Both of these periods saw the slaughter of untold numbers of Indonesians. The very power to do this came from the fact that power was quickly consolidated and no term limits forced political change to occur no matter how minimal.

Look, the term limit system is not perfect, one only has to look at Russia and how Vladimir Putin has manipulated the political term limits system to ensure that he remains a powerful force, but that does not make it right.

So, how should we view Ruhut's latest jaunt into controversy? The cynic, or conspiracy theorist, in me says that this is a far more elaborate, and cunning, plan than people and media are giving it credit for. At the moment, most people seem to think that this is just "crazy old Ruhut trying to make a name for himself and get into the papers and on TV."

To the contrary, this could just as easily be the Democrat Party testing the waters for a move to introduce a constitutional amendment to parliament in a move to change term limit laws. By getting Ruhut to put the suggestion out there in the public sphere allows Yudhoyono and the Democrat Party to put at arm's length the statements of Ruhut.

This might seem surprising to some, but it is easier enough to do as Ruhut has always been viewed as the one that might let his mouth get into gear before his brain does. This in, and of itself, is surprising because Ruhut is obviously not a stupid man, this idea aside, so it seems strange to write this off as the ramblings of a crazy old politician with nothing better to do.

Hence, the idea that this may in fact be the Democrat Party, on Yudhoyono's instructions, testing the waters. After all, power tends to corrupt, if you search the annals of Indonesian political media coverage you will uncover plenty of statements to the effect that Yudhoyono only wanted to serve the people of Indonesia and he only wanted to do that for one term. He is now on his second term.

There is no legal harm in SBY doing a constitutionally permitted second term. There is plenty of social harm though, in popularly electing to a second term, a president who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk on corruption, among other problems.

Hopefully, the Indonesian people will react negatively to the idea of SBY doing a third term as president and this little sideshow can be put to bed forever.

The State Administrative Court in Jakarta has rejected a petition by the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Aliansi Jurnalis Independen / AJI) to overturn the Indonesian Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film / LSF) ban on the film Balibo. The story is told from the viewpoint of Roger East. Roger East was also murdered on the docks of Dili by Indonesia military forces.

The film says in its promotional material and trailer that it is based on a true story, and suggests in no uncertain terms that the five journalists (Greg Shackleton, Malcolm Rennie, Gary Cunningham, Brian Peters and Tony Stewart) that have come to be known was the Balibo Five were murdered by Indonesian forces invading East Timor.

Recent developments, including a coronial inquiry in the New South Wales Coroner's Court, found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with further investigations of the perpetrators for committing international crimes of a serious and grievous nature; a war crimes investigation.

In many respects, it is not surprising that the film was banned in the first place, nor is it at all surprising that the ban was upheld by the State Administrative Court. It is not rocket science to understand that there are some things in Indonesia's past that she would not want to revisit, and this is one of them.

It is worth noting that the Australian government is not jumping up and down wanting to know why the film is subject to a ban. This is not surprising either. It is not surprising because Australia was very much complicit in the invasion as it gave the green light for the Indonesians to go in and forcibly integrate Portuguese Timor into the Unitary State of Indonesia. It is also not surprising because it shows how little thought the government of the time gave to the safety of the five journalists on the ground or to Roger East.

Nevertheless, it is surprising that the State Administrative Court has seemingly been asleep at the wheel when it came to hearing the evidence and actually listening to the evidence put forward by the Legal Aid Foundation - Press, legal representatives, of AJI. The State Administrative Court has utilised provisions that were not argued and appear to be poor choices on which to base the decision to uphold the ban and reject the AJI petition. In an important case, such as this one, where there are implications for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which Indonesia supposedly guarantees, then the judges have a responsibility to get the law right.

On a side note, the film has already been screened in Indonesia despite the ban and no problems have been reported. Indonesian, Timorese, and Australia relations have not irretrievably broken down, there has not been mass rioting on the streets in the places where the film has been shown, and there has not been any inkling of the country degenerating into a state of anarchy. This suggests that, despite the Indonesian Censorship Board's concerns, Indonesian film viewers are more mature and critical of the material they watch than either the Government, the military, or the Censorship Board gives them credit for.

Indonesia to Ban Blackberries?

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have moved to ban Blackberry messaging, email, and web browsing services. The belief is that the way Research In Motion (RIM), the owner of Blackberry technology, encrypts this information is a serious threat to security.

The suggestion is that terrorists can use Blackberries to wreak havoc and mayhem. Alternatively, this may just be a case of "big brother" wanting to ensure that it has access to every single thing that you do on your mobile.

Not wanting to be left behind in the draconian law stakes, Indonesia is mulling a ban on Blackberry services on the grounds of security. The Indonesian Telecommunication Regulation Authority (BRTI) will be taking the lead in determining whether a ban should be put into place. The idea of a ban is not surprising, and the "national security" card was expected at some point. The move to ban Blackberry services is just part of a much broader assault on the freedoms of ordinary Indonesians to go about their business without government interference.

It should not be to long before all houses are built with glass or perspex walls and curtains are banned in the interests of national security. After all, terrorists might plan their heinous crimes in darkened houses with drawn curtains, and heaven forbid (even with 72 virgins awaiting for some) we cannot have that!

But, on a more serious note, and Blackberry related, it is estimated that there are some 1.2 million Blackberry users in Indonesia. The vast majority of these users are law abiding citizens using their devices for business or pleasure (such as social networking or downloading Indonesian celebrity sex tapes). A ban on Blackberry is likely to encounter stiff resistance, and not only from those downloading porn, but from regular Indonesians who rely on Blackberry services to go about their business. The plan, if it is such, will also harm business and presumably impact on investment.

Interestingly, Barack Obama still uses his Blackberry. My guess is that the encryption services offered by RIM are only the tip of the iceberg on his Blackberry. I would reckon there were probably a couple of addition layers of encryption and other unknown state-of-the-art security features attached to his device.

As an aside, I will need to do a little research. It was not all that long ago that Indonesia was talking about ousting RIM and Blackberry from Indonesia by banning the devices (aka smartphones) if RIM did not open a representative office in Indonesia and go about setting up a mirror site in Indonesia to improve services and decrease end costs to Blackberry users. The research relates to whether that ever went ahead, as my understanding is that there is not a mirror site. I have not read about RIM opening a representative office. I do recall I wrote about this before, so I guess I go back into the RAB files and see what I can come up with.

Anyway, to all my Indonesian followers, friends, and colleagues who are Blackberry users....Big Brother is coming!

The Leaders' Debate -- Gillard Just...

The "Great Debate", or the not so great debate depending on your interest in Australian politics, was won just by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott put up a much better showing than many thought possible. Nevertheless, the most illuminating moments associated with this debate was that there were no illuminating moments. The reality is that neither Gillard or Abbott offered up anything substantial from what we already know about them.

The debate was the same, but the worms were different. Channel 9 was running a worm that suggests Gillard comprehensively trounced Abbott by some 63% to 37%. The Channel 7 worm had it much closer at 53% to 47%. Personally, I think the Channel 7 worm had it pretty much right. Interestingly, both worms were true to expected form and fell along gender lines. Most women going for the female Prime Minister and most men going for the male leader of the Opposition.

Neither leader was able to deliver a significant blow. In fact, both came across as overly cautious and unwilling to make any big statements about themselves, their beliefs, or what real changes the Australian people will enjoy under either a Labor or Liberal (Coalition) government. Maybe the lack of a third party option in the debate, like the Greens, might inspire people to seek out that option prior to the election. The Greens under Bob Brown have seemingly become an increasingly attractive option for those disillusioned with the main parties.

Yet, one of the most significant things for Labor to consider is the response to Gillard's failure to be specific on the ouster of the former PM, Kevin Rudd. The worms tracked instantaneously lower suggesting that people have an issue with the way that the leadership was spilled. Maybe the pencil pushers over at Labor Headquarters will need to put some spin on this and get it out into the electorate. The leadership spill might be better confronted head on and called as it was. Sometimes the truth will set you free.

The thing that stuck me about the debate, and to which I alluded earlier, is that there is not a whole lot of difference in the policies of either party or leader. This is probably more of a problem for the Liberal Coalition than it is for the incumbent Labor Government. The reason is a simple one, why change governments if there is not going to be any real change in either policy or direction? If it is going to be the same old, same old then perhaps it is better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

It is too bad that this seems to have been a one-off debate. Another debate or two might have been worth a look-see.

Mobile Speed Cameras -- Cynical Revenue Raising...

How stupid does the New South Wales government think the citizens of this fine state are? I have nothing against reducing the road toll, I have nothing against the idea of people being required to drive at the speed limit or getting fined if the exceed it. However, the idea that the introduction of mobile speed cameras in NSW is anything other than a revenue raising drive to fill holes in the budget is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of NSW motorists.

Call me a cynic, but whenever the camera is set up to photograph you first and then notify you that your speed has been recorded is not a behavioural modification exercise in encouraging people to slow down, but rather it is a blatant exercise in raising revenue. So, when the NSW Minister of Transport gets up and says, "(But) certainly we'd be happy if not a single dollar, not a single cent were raised from digital mobile speed cameras," then you know he is telling fibs.

The reality is that the NSW government includes in its budget monies that it anticipates in collecting from speeding fines. To this end, the 2010/2011 budget papers estimate that there will be an increase of some AUD 137 million in fine revenue. The only real significant change in collection is the introduction of covert mobile speed cameras.

As I said, call me a cynic, but...

Beating Activists in Indonesia...

Some things seem destined to never change. The fact that Indonesia seemingly does not take this kind of violence and brutality seriously only serves to embolden the perpetrators into believing that they can act with immunity and impunity. The Munir case remains unresolved; unresolved to any satisfaction to those who have suffered directly and to the great majority of Indonesians who suffer indirectly because of the president's, the government's, and law enforcement's desire not to pursue the case seriously.

This lack of action can be directly linked, at least in my humble opinion, to the recent brutal bashing and stabbing of Tama Satrya Langkun of Indonesian Corruption watch. Langkun is an investigator with ICW and has been prominent in the uncovering of alleged police corruption, particularly the publicising of some rather large deposits into the personal bank accounts of Indonesian police officers. Langkun was stabbed and beaten in a vicious attack in Duren Tiga in South Jakarta. He was riding a motorcycle with a colleague. The attack occurred at 3.45am. He is reportedly in a stable condition in a local hospital.

This was clearly not a robbery but rather a calculated attack against an activist. Nothing was stolen. In fact, the perpetrators revisited the scene of the crime after the attack to return Langkun's motorcycle helmet, which had been taken.

Indonesia claims to be a democracy where the rule of law prevails. This would be much easier to believe if the perpetrators of assassinations, such as that of Munir, and the political violence evidenced in this most recent attack were pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Indonesia might be a democracy, but it is a democracy where the 'old ways' continue to be tolerated and seemingly encouraged through the lack of action taken by the powers that be.

Maybe it is time for all Indonesians to take a stand and demand something more than lip-service to the ideal of good governance, clean governance, democracy, and human rights from their fellow Indonesians in government and law enforcement.

It could be a long wait.

The photo was sourced from The Jakarta Globe via Facebook.

Kretek Cigarettes, the US, and the WTO...

The Indonesian kretek export sector is destined to take a big hit as the ban imposed on flavoured tobacco products by the US kicks in. The ban is going to significantly, and adversely, effect sales and foreign reserve income from the export of clove flavoured cigarettes between Indonesia and the US.

For the Government of Indonesia, the The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is going to see about USD 6.5 million in foreign reserves income dry up almost instantly. Therefore, the government has determined that the US Act is in breach of US obligations under WTO agreements and is seeking WTO assistance in resolving the dispute. The essence of the Indonesian claim is that the US is illegally discriminating against Indonesian products (kretek cigarettes). The legal issues will be interesting to watch as they unravel before the WTO Dispute Settlement body in Geneva.

I am not a smoker. I would be happy if smoking was banned on a global scale. That said, I do appreciate that some people may claim to be happy smokers and content with their addiction and any harm that it might be doing to them and those around them. I also appreciate that tobacco is big business and employs a lot of people. This is most definitely the case in Indonesia where labour is cheap and labour laws are not always enforced as they have been enacted (even with the creation of a labour court). The cold hard reality is that many Indonesian workers, and mostly women, will be likely to become redundant now that the US market for clove cigarettes is to all intents and purposes closed for business.

An unfortunate consequence of the enactment of this US Act is not that smoking companies will not be making any money, but rather that this will be used to downsize and make redundant workers who can least afford to become redundant. In the big scheme of things this legislation is going to have noticeable social and economic impacts in the small communities that roll these clove cigarettes for the US market.

I am not confident that the cigarette companies or the Indonesian government will be able to mitigate the hardships that some workers will be forced to endure as a result. With a little bit of help to re-train and re-skill  many of these soon to be redundant workers could remain valuable contributors to a brighter economic future for Indonesia.

Indonesia, Armani, and a Garuda...

This is one of those times where you sit back in your chair, shake your head, and wonder out loud whether Indonesian politicians have anything better to do. I understand national pride, I understand the need to protect cultural heritage, and I understand insult.

However, I do not understand why you would want to make a mountain out of a molehill on this issue. Unless, of course you wanted to distract the people's attention from more pressing and important matters such as providing a clear explanation of the Bank Century Bailout so that even non-economic types can understand the need, as the government saw it, to bail out a bank of Bank Century's size during a global financial crisis.

Perhaps there is a need to distract people's attention from the shenanigans going on in the Antasari Azhar trial for pre-meditated murder of a love rival. Or maybe it is as simple as needing to distract people's attention away from the faltering president whose 100-day agenda is looking increasingly unlikely to transpire as opposed to just expiring in the sense of dying where it lay.

So, what is this mountain out of a molehill?

Some members of the House of Representatives (usually representing no one but themselves) decided that they were going to pursue Armani for producing a T-Shirt which allegedly desecrates the national symbol of Indonesia. The offending shirt, or at least the image off of it is in the photo above (photo courtesy of Multibrand), has caused quite a stir. The claims, including one from the Minister of Law and Human Rights, Patrialis Akbar, are that the Garuda Pancasila is patented by Indonesia. Now, if this were true, then the image on the offending Armani t-shirt would need to be more than just similar, wouldn't it?

In my mind it would have to be unmistakeably the Garuda Pancasila that everyone associates with being the national symbol of Indonesia. My guess is that most people throughout the world might have some trouble recognizing their own national symbols let alone those of other countries. Yet, in any event, this hardly seems to be a breach of patent (considering patents are for inventions and I am pretty sure that Indonesia did not invent the Garuda). It is also unlikely a breach of trademark.

If Armani was an Indonesian company, then the most likely law to pursue the company under would be the recently passed Law No. 24 of 2009 which deals with matters relating to national symbols, among other matters. Unfortunately, Law No. 24 of 2009 is not likely to have much extra-territorial application if the idea is to pursue Armani overseas. It is also unlikely to succeed in pursuing Armani stores that sell the goods in Indonesia either.

Brett over at Spruiked takes a peak at this issue in his usual forthright manner, and it is worth a read.

The real question is does the use of the Garuda in this way really offend the sensibilities of the majority of Indonesians? My guess is, No! The common sense of the vast majority of Indonesians need not be questioned. And, it is an unfortunate thing that this vast majority is not in the House of Representatives, because then Indonesians and those of us with an interest in Indonesian affairs would not have to read such drivel as a few members of the House of Representatives exploring the possibility of suing a fashion label for using an image of a mythical creature.

Maybe Indonesians are, on the whole, proud that an image they associate with is used in such a way. It is worth noting that Armani has supposedly apologized for any offense it may have caused.

There really must be more important issues of governance to attend to, right?

SBY -- When the Going gets Tough, the Tough get Singing...

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) has found time in his hectic schedule of governing the Republic of Indonesia to release his third album of songs. This is pretty funny on so many levels. The president has laid out a pretty ambitious agenda for his first 100 days of his second term, and seems to be failing pretty miserably on all fronts of that agenda. Further into the equation comes the shenanigans he is facing in the ongoing enquiry related to the Bank Century bailout.

But, amongst the seeming unravelling of his second term in office, the president felt it necessary to take a break and release his third album, "Ku Yakin Sampai ke Sana"(or 'I Believe I Can Get There'). The album is nine songs long and includes the involvement of some of Indonesia's more recognizable musical talent, such as Rio Febrian, Elfa Singers, and Tantowi Yahya, among others.

According to SBY, the songs are reflective of his mood. The songs are supposed to communicate this mood to the people, and to highlight the president's commitment to serving them and serving them well. Perhaps, rather than cooing and singing to the masses, the president can actually do some work and solve some of the problems afflicting his administration. Simply, if he did the work and then claimed the victories of that work then the masses of Indonesians who voted for him might enjoy a whole lot more prosperity and good fortune rather than the empty promises of a few songs.

Just a thought.

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

Pro Bono Legal Work in Australia...

There are about 50,000 lawyers in Australia and about 5,700 of those have signed onto the National Pro Bono Resource Centre to get lawyers to do 35 hours of pro bono work every year. This is a significant jump in lawyers signing on. The previous year saw 2,900 lawyers participating.

Well, figures released this week shows that these lawyers did some 183,771.5 pro bono hours or almost AUD 46 million of pro bono work. This figure is costed at AUD 250 per hour which is probably lower than the average hourly charge out rate for most. The number of hours is up from 113,356 hours of the previous year.

It is worth noting that of the 44,300 lawyers not signed up to the program there are very many who do pro bono work as well. Therefore, it is fair to say that Australian lawyers are making sizable pro bono contributions as the rule rather than as the exception.

Governments never have the money to properly fund legal aid services, and therefore pro bono work serves to offset some of the lack of funding. The other primary beneficiaries of pro bono work are charities and non-government organizations.

Public interest law like legal aid is always challenging and pro bono work is always a good way to vary your routine and to keep your skills up to date in areas of law that you might not practice on a regular basis.

(Cartoons courtesy of here)

The Empire State Building and 60 Years of Communist Rule in China...

New York City has decided to commemorate, and perhaps honor, sixty years of communist rule in China by lighting up the Empire State Building in red and yellow lights.

This has not pleased everyone. Those that oppose the move, albeit now being too late, state that this act in effect endorses China's totalitarian government and abysmal human rights record in places like Tibet and the recent crackdown on the Uighurs in the Xinjiang region.

It is certainly an interesting choice considering the Chinese government has a record of suppressing freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression, and the freedom of association, to name but a few. So, a legitimate question would be, "why is the home of the brave and the land of the free honoring a land whose government seemingly does not believe in those ideals?"

(Photo courtesy of AP)

Transmigration in Indonesia -- Amended Regulatory Framework...

This is something that was written for en.hukumonline.com. The original can be found here.

The era of “reformasi” was the spur for many changes in Indonesia, and this includes the drive to amend the 1945 Constitution of the Republic. There have been four amendments to date. These amendments were enacted in the period between 1999 and 2002. Furthermore, the amendments have since required that other legislation (laws and regulations) also be amended to ensure that those pieces of legislation comply with the amended Constitution.

The previous law on Transmigration Law No. 15 of 1997, has been amended in order to comply with the Constitution as it now stands, particularly with respect to matters of regional autonomy.

The Amendment Bill on Law No. 15 of 1997 was passed by the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) and is currently awaiting the signature of the president before it can be promulgated as law. The amendments focus almost exclusively on the decentralization of certain transmigration related authorities from the Central Government to the relevant Regional Governments. The amendments also endeavor to create a more conducive transmigration sector; conducive to investment.

Articles 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35 have been amended, as has the Title of Chapter VII. Additionally, Chapter IX and Article 34 have been repealed. Finally, three Chapters have been inserted and replace Chapter XI, specifically: Chapters XA, XB, and XC.

One of the most notable changes is that the authority to: determine, establish, and develop areas for transmigration has devolved to the relevant regional governments. This is notable for two reasons; this places greater administrative control on the regional governments themselves to be pro-active in providing support for the transmigration program and accountability.

In effect, the amendments would provide the opportunity to enterprising regional governments to either go it alone or enter into private / public partnerships to develop and exploit their regional potential by enhancing opportunities for transmigration. Whether this eventuates remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the potential for such a development is clearly available under the provisions of the amended law.

The new law provides for sanctions to be imposed on anyone who breaches the prevailing provisions. This is irrespective of whether the breach is conducted by a government official, a business entity, a transmigrant, or some other individual or group. Generally, the sanctions provide for:

• Oral / written warnings;
• Cancellation of licenses (for business entities), transmigrant status (for transmigrants), and / or the Minister of Labor and Transmigration (for groups of people); and
• Criminal sanctions. Not all of the amendments are significant in terms of size.

For example, the provisions of Chapter VIII have been amended to merely change one word; “guidance” (pembinaan) to “development” (pengembangan). Nevertheless, there is seemingly a significant difference in terms of what is required between providing guidance and facilitating development. Yet, the amendment is just one word.

The bill comes into immediate force once it is promulgated. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.

Indian Students Studying In NSW -- Numbers Dropping

New South Wales can ill afford to be potentially losing some AUD 300 million in revenue from Indian students who choose to study in NSW's institutes of learning and education. However, this is the prospect facing the current Rees government in view of their total inability to reassure potential students coming from the sub-continent about their safety should they choose to come and study here in NSW.

Sad really.

Australia, as most countries in the world, have elements that are not welcoming of those different from themselves. And, in this regard NSW has its share of this element as well. The recent violent conflicts that have given rise to this potential loss are racial conflicts between Indian students and some Australian youths of Lebanese ancestry.

The local media portrayed the conflicts as seething tensions between Indian students and Lebanese youths. This is always the way, when the Australian multicultural community does things that are considered to promote the Australian way of life or they make a contribution that makes all Australians proud, then they are Australians. However, in contrast when they do something which causes shame or embarrassment, then the media and a great majority of the rest of us resort to referring to them based on their ancestral homes. This is irrespective of whether these youths are 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation Australians.

Sad really.

However, it is worth noting that racism in Australia is not only Anglo-Australians against the rest. Racism is not limited to one group or another. If it exists, then it is fair to say that it exists across the board. Growing up I always remember visiting my grandmother in Punchbowl, and even as a kid I could notice the changing demographic as one group moved out as another moved in, and this cycle repeated itself. My Nan, I think, she just like living their, and besides she had always lived there, so there it was.

Back to the main point. The bad publicity like the Harris Park stand-off and the subsequent overload of bad press in India has meant that Indians have developed the idea that Australia, and NSW in particular are racist places. This is not true. However, once a perception takes hold it is always difficult to undo. This growing negative view has resulted in new student enquiries about studying in NSW dropping some 50% in next to no time at all.

Generally, there are anywhere up to 20,000 Indian students studying in NSW alone at any one time. On average international students contribute about AUD 29,000 to the Australian economy. The basic math here would suggest that Indian students alone are making quite a significant contribution to the NSW economy.

The response of sending the Minister of Education out to reassure potential students that it is OK is probably a little on the short side. Maybe NSW needs to invest a little to protect the market and be a lot more pro-active in promoting the fact that these incidents, like the Harris Park one, are isolated. The NSW Government needs to recruit prominent members of the Indian community to be part of the campaign to highlight that NSW is not a racist place and in fact it is a welcoming place, and a great place to study and gain an excellent education.

Australian Travel Advice -- Indonesia -- 30 July 2009

This is the latest travel advice for Indonesia that I have received.

Make of it what you will. The internal links are working when I checked them. What appears below is the overall summary of the advice. I have also cut and pasted the section on terrorism. This section includes a statement that Indonesian authorities have provided information that terrorists may be intending to kidnap foreigners. If you want to read the advice in full, then follow the relevant links.

Summary

• The World Health Organisation (WHO) has confirmed cases of H1N1 Influenza 09 in a number of countries throughout the world, including Indonesia. For a list of these countries, visit the WHO website. For further information and advice to Australians, including on possible quarantine measures overseas, see our travel bulletin on H1N1 Influenza 09.
• We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Indonesia, including Bali, at this time due to the very high threat of terrorist attack.
• On 17 July 2009, terrorists detonated bombs at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta. Australians were among those killed and injured.
• There is a possibility of further terrorist attacks in Jakarta and elsewhere in Indonesia, including Bali. In past years, terrorists have attacked nightclubs, bars, restaurants and hotels in Bali and Jakarta. In the wake of the 17 July Jakarta bombings, we judge that these types of venues in Bali and Jakarta are still targets of interest to terrorists.
• We continue to receive credible information that terrorists could be planning attacks in Indonesia and that Bali remains an attractive target for terrorists. You should exercise great care, particularly around locations that have a low level of protective security.
• If you do decide to travel to Indonesia, you should exercise extreme caution.
• Previous terrorist attacks against Westerners in Bali and Jakarta indicate these areas are priority targets. You should take particular care to avoid places known to be terrorist targets. See the Terrorism section for details.
• Presidential elections were held on 8 July 2009. There were incidents of violence in Papua during the parliamentary elections in April 2009, including attacks on infrastructure. There is a possibility of further attacks, including on infrastructure, in the period surrounding the Presidential elections.
• Since 11 July 2009 there has been a series of violent attacks near the Freeport Mine in Papua. One Australian has been killed in these attacks. Further violence is possible.
• Australians should avoid all protests, demonstrations and rallies as they can turn violent.
• We advise you to read carefully the sections on travel to Aceh, Central Sulawesi Province, Maluku, Papua and West Timor where additional safety risks exist.
• The World Health Organization (WHO) has confirmed human deaths from avian influenza in Indonesia, including Bali. The Indonesian Government has declared that rabies is present in Bali. See the Health Issues section below for advice to Australians travelling to or resident in Indonesia.
• You should telephone ahead for an appointment before going to the Australian Embassy (See Where to Get Help).
• Because of the serious terrorist threat we strongly recommend that you register your travel and contact details with us so we can contact you in an emergency.
• Be a smart traveller. Before heading overseas:
  • organise comprehensive travel insurance and check what circumstances and activities are not covered by your policy
  • subscribe to this travel advice to receive free email updates each time it's reissued.

Terrorism is a threat throughout the world. You can find more information about this threat in our General Advice to Australian Travellers.

We advise you to reconsider your need to travel to Indonesia due to the very high threat of terrorist attack. Ask yourself whether, given your own personal circumstances, you're comfortable travelling to Indonesia knowing there is a very high threat from terrorism and you may be caught up in a terrorist attack. Ask yourself whether travel could be deferred or an alternative destination chosen. If, having considered these issues, you do decide to travel to Indonesia, you should exercise extreme caution.

On 17 July 2009, terrorists detonated bombs at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta. Australians were among those killed and injured.

There is a possibility of further terrorist attacks in Jakarta and elsewhere in Indonesia, including Bali. In past years, terrorists have attacked nightclubs, bars, restaurants and hotels in Bali and Jakarta. In the wake of the 17 July Jakarta bombings, we judge that these types of venues in Bali and Jakarta are still targets of interest to terrorists.

We continue to receive credible information that terrorists could be planning attacks in Indonesia and that Bali remains an attractive target for terrorists. These attacks could take place at any time. You should be particularly vigilant during holiday periods such as Easter and Christmas.

Indonesian authorities have warned that terrorists may be planning to kidnap foreigners.

Attacks against Westerners in Bali and Jakarta indicate that these areas are a priority target for terrorists. Suicide attacks against locations frequented by foreigners in Bali and Jakarta such as the 1 October 2005 and 12 October 2002 Bali bombings and bomb attack outside the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in September 2004 killed and injured many people. Westerners were also targeted in the bombing of a five-star hotel in central Jakarta in August 2003. We cannot rule out the possibility of another attack targeting Westerners, including Australians.

In planning your activities, consider the kind of places known to be terrorist targets and the level of security provided at venues. You should take particular care to avoid places known to be terrorist targets. Tourist areas and attractions throughout Indonesia and tourists travelling to or from these places, including those in tour groups or tour buses, could be targeted. Other possible targets include international hotels, clubs, sporting clubs and venues, restaurants, international fast food outlets, bars, nightclubs, cinemas, theatres, Jakarta's embassy district and diplomatic missions elsewhere, international schools, expatriate housing compounds and Western interests and businesses. Places frequented by foreigners, central business areas, office buildings, churches and other places of worship, airlines, airports, public transport and transport hubs, shopping centres, premises and symbols associated with the Indonesian Government, and outdoor recreation events are also potential targets.

Due to security concerns, security at the Australian Embassy in Jakarta and the Consulate-General in Bali is at a high level. The Australian Embassy has advised its staff and their families to be particularly careful in how they travel or walk to and from the Embassy.

Same-Sex Couples and Adoption in NSW

A NSW Government parliamentary inquiry has recommended that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. The victory was a narrow one, so narrow that it required the chair to cast the deciding vote, and the vote is likely to reignite the nurture / nature debate sometime down the track in the event that the State Government picks up on the recommendation and seeks to amend the relevant laws and regulations.

In essence, the report recommends that same-sex couples must not be discriminated against in the adoption process. Therefore, same-sex couples are to be assessed in exactly the same way as a heterosexual couple as to their suitability to adopt children.

It is expected that if the legislation was to be amended, then this would expand the pool of potential / possible parents. It is also expected that this will provide greater flexibility to adoption agencies in ensuring that the best interests of the child are realized by allowing them to be adopted by the best possible candidates for parenthood.

If the government was to run with the recommendations, then the first step would be to introduce an amendment bill to the Adoption Act. However, considering the contentious nature of the subject matter, then there is also an expectation that this may spend a lot of time in committees seeking to determine the feasibility of amending the legislation to reflect the recommendations.

The reality is that the government is struggling in opinion polls and this one is not likely to help them on that front. It would be interesting to see whether the government would allow a conscience vote on the bill if it were ever to make it to the floor of parliament.

The amendment of the legislation is the right thing to do. The fact that gay and lesbian couples are prohibited from adopting children is discriminatory. As human beings, people have a right to live their lives free from the discriminatory discretion of the state. Same-sex couples already have the right to foster children, so it makes sense that these same people must also enjoy the right to adopt children as well.

With a bit of luck the NSW Government will not play politics with this one and just get it done. After all, it is the right thing to do.